[Bf-committers] BGE Future

Arnaud Loonstra arnaud at sphaero.org
Tue Jun 18 13:11:37 CEST 2013


Hi Gavin,

While I tend to agree on your observations I do think the direction for the realtime part of Blender (BGE) should be a more general one. So not necessary a game direction. A game engine is just an engine optimised for realtime applications. So if Blender puts more focus into the realtime possibilities it will open the way for way more artists and designers than only the game artists. i.e.:
* Data Visualisation
* (Scientific) simulations
* Generative applications
* interactive installations (new media art)
* generative animations for use in animations

So this 'interactive' focus includes possibilies for games while giving Blender a 'game' focus would potentially exclude other options. This is what we suffer a lot for example. The game engine is focused on game application which makes us do a lot of tricks to get it to do more. By the way modern games are also getting more out of the computers using more Mixed Reality technologies and new HID devices. Take a Kinect for example... A kinect device can do way more than only controlling a game, see puppeteering examples...

So I for one am very happy which this focus and expect to see more unification between BGE and Blender. So I'm quite sure the BGE will benefit from it. I tend to agree on Ton's statements in the past i.e.: http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?226524-Where-is-the-development#10

I just hope the blenderplayer (or similar headless mode) will remain, but I can hardy imagine without it anyway.

The future is more with realtime/interactive possibilities which includes games, not vice-versa.

Rg,

Arnaud
-- 
Stichting z25.org
Concordiastraat 67A
3551 EM Utrecht
The Netherlands

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:30:26 -0600
Gavin Howard <gavin.d.howard at gmail.com> wrote:

> All,
> 
> I'm starting a new thread because it looks like the previous thread
> got mixed in with another thread.
> 
> I never thought that I would write a post like this, but quite
> frankly, I was surprised by how quickly user opposition cropped up
> from Ton's proposed changes to the BGE. At this point, I feel that I
> need to speak frankly. I hope that I don't step on anyone's toes, and
> I also hope that I don't offend anyone. I will be writing down the
> situation as I understand it (so I will be repeating things everyone
> already knows), and I will be offering my commentary and opinion. That
> said, here goes.
> 
> I started using Blender regularly about a year and a half ago. From
> the beginning, I started regularly observing the BlenderNation forums,
> as well as other gathering places for users and devs. Even at the
> start, I saw a little bit of tension between BGE users and Blender
> devs. The users LOVE their engine, maybe more so than regular Blender
> users love Blender. They desperately want some dev time put in the
> BGE, and the devs just haven't had time or interest.
> 
> Obviously, a change has been needed. And then, Ton makes proposed
> changes that sound as though the BGE is going away as BGE, even if
> there is no loss of functionality. Now, I want it understood that I
> have never been a BGE user. I don't have any use for it because I
> don't make, or even play, video games, but there are quite a few BGE
> users that want to keep the engine an engine. So they toss around the
> option of creating a fork from an existing build that has many
> user-submitted patches applied.
> 
> To complicate things, Daniel Stokes has a BGE project. He is now
> working on an engine that may not be an engine in a year or two.
> (Sorry, Daniel!) Nevertheless, it was time for Ton to put out the
> roadmap. I believe the only mistake he made was that he didn't
> anticipate how much the BGE means to its users. But it was definitely
> time. Version 2.68 is more than halfway done, and 2.69 is just around
> the corner. We need to plan for 2.7x, and we need to do it soon.
> 
> As an up-and-coming animator, being able to apply logic nodes to
> animations sounds incredibly good. Having an interactive mode that is
> not a game engine sounds incredibly good. Being able to do rule-based
> animation (for crowds and things like that) sounds AWESOMELY good. I
> LIKE the direction that Ton wants to go. Blender's main purpose is to
> produce images and animations, so it fits with the philosophy as well.
> However, I also understand that many people see the game engine for
> what it is: a game engine.
> 
> So, here's MY proposal, if it even matters. I propose that Daniel keep
> his project. Yes, I know, it may not matter in the long run. But wait
> a second! His project is to add level-of-detail support to the BGE. As
> an animator, if my software can automatically adjust the level of
> detail for objects based on distance from the camera, I would be very
> happy, so even if BGE disappears, that code won't, which means that
> mainstream Blender would get that capability. That is VERY cool. And
> then, his project is to do a lot of refactoring, bug fixing, and so
> on. Well, the BGE apparently needs it, and even if a fork happens, I'm
> sure the Blender Foundation would love to start working on interactive
> mode with a codebase that has been cleaned up. Plus, a lot of that
> fixing can be investigating the patches that were applied in the HG1
> Build and seeing if the official BGE could use them.
> 
> So let Daniel keep the same project. At the end of the summer, when
> 2.69 is about to come out, let's all sit down and figure out what we
> are going to do. I have no doubt that Ton will continue to want to
> create interactive mode from the BGE, and I have no doubt that users
> will want to fork it. So I propose this: users, spend the summer to
> find someone who knows the BGE codebase that also knows Ton personally
> and is willing to head up the project. (Make sure Ton knows him/her
> personally as well.) Then, after the summer, they should sit down and
> figure out how to make two projects out of one. If a new project were
> to be made, I would want everyone to part on good terms, and since the
> new project (GameBlender probably) would use a lot of Blender trunk,
> there is no reason to split the two projects completely. We can be
> like Krita and MyPaint, two similar open source projects with
> different philosophies that coordinate with each other. It would be
> great if someone can be found that can work with Ton, so the
> GameBlender project could keep up-to-date with Blender trunk, which
> would allow them to focus on the game engine itself. Oh, and since Ton
> has run an open source project for over a decade now, he could help
> the new project lead to learn the ropes.
> 
> IMO, this solution, actually splitting the projects, just might get
> rid of the tension that has existed between BGE users and Blender
> devs. It will allow Blender to keep its core philosophy, as well as
> allow BGE users to keep their engine.
> 
> Again, I hope this email has not offended anyone or stepped on
> anyone's toes. If it has, I am sorry.
> 
> God Bless,
> Gavin Howard
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers


More information about the Bf-committers mailing list